I'd leave it to the wedding cake outfit to decide which edding sthey want to contract their services for,<quoted text>
It wasn't a red herring, it was just a relevant example. If we had been talking about the florist at that moment instead of the baker, I wouldn't have referenced eating.
However, consumers consume. That's why we call them "consumers". Whether they actually EAT the product is immaterial. They take the product for their use, their "consumption".
Can you show where that is actually the objection stated? Because again, as I looked over the article, it was pretty blatant in stating that...
"Their argument is that professionals whose work is by nature expressive - such as writers, advertisers and website designers - should not have to apply their artistic talents to subjects on which they disagree."
Now, this could just be the journalist putting their own spin on the wording.
And can be broken with REASONABLE exceptions. No one is trying to enslave these merchants, we are only expecting them to do the job which they advertise.
Well, I'm no lawyer, and I don't know about that. Sounds implausible. I wouldn't want any business owner lording over me about what I may do with the products I buy.
There's only two kinds.
If someone wants to only do straight weddings, then they leave the money on the table for someone else to pick up.